Obama Aide On Syria's Assad: 'If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, Whats That Got Do Do With Us?' Daniel Halper May 5, 2013 10:12 AM

President Barack Obama got ahead of himself and his advisers when he said that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a "red line," the New York Times reports.

How can we attack another country unless its in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution? an unnamed Obama administration official tells the paper. If he drops sarin on his own people, whats that got to do with us?

But they concluded that drawing a firm line might deter Mr. Assad. In addition to secret messages relayed through Russia, Iran and other governments, they decided that the president would publicly address the matter.

Several officials said they recalled no discussion about the red line phrase but suspected that it came out of the election-year conversation about Iran and how far to allow its nuclear program to progress before being forced to take action. It was a concept that was embedded in peoples prefrontal cortex, one of the officials said.

While surprised at the presidents use of the term in regard to Syria on Aug. 20, advisers concluded that it had succeeded, at least for a while, since months passed with no chemical weapons attack.

But if the tough rhetoric "succeeded" for a time, it appears to have backfired in the long-run. Because Syria has now apparently used chemical weapons, and President Obama is not willing to do anything about it.

In fact, Obama is now downplaying any sort of response, even before settling on a specific response to Syrai crossing the red line.

As a general rule, I dont rule things out as commander in chief because circumstances change and you want to make sure that I always have the full power of the United States at our disposal to meet American national security interests, Obama commented on Syria, while speaking at news conference in Costa Rica. Then, Obama went on to contradict himself.

Having said that, I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in Syria, would not only be good for America, but also would be good for Syria, the president said.

Why would diplomacy try to avoid public ‘red lines’? Especially on something like chemical weapons? Because terrorists are generally lazy. They would much rather toss a bomb into a pressure cooker, or strap it to a person, than go through the effort to create some extensive remote timed detonation system.

And you can use common household chemicals to create a similar result to militarized chemical weapons. If the terrorists who are attempting to topple Assad can get the US military to topple him for them by killing a few hundred innocents, it is an event that they’re more than willing to fulfill. Not only will the military do their work, but they can sit back and point at the great Satin who is once again bombing innocents, and forcing their way into Islam’s sphere without invitation.

I have no love of Assad, but creating yet another terrorist Mecca after making so many is hardly in our interests.

8
posted on 05/05/2013 7:37:17 AM PDT
by kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)

“you can use common household chemicals to create a similar result to militarized chemical weapons. If the terrorists who are attempting to topple Assad can get the US military to topple him for them by killing a few hundred innocents, it is an event that theyre more than willing to fulfill. Not only will the military do their work, but they can sit back and point at the great Satin who is once again bombing innocents, and forcing their way into Islams sphere without invitation.”

Excellent what if, and a very probable one.

13
posted on 05/05/2013 7:43:06 AM PDT
by Grampa Dave
(I'm afraid to go visit any American college because of all the foreign students with bombs.)

1. If Muzzies want to kill other Muzzies, I don’t see why we should interfere. Just doing the job Americans refuse to do. I see no upside in getting involved, and certainly no upside that would warrant wasting military resources (paid for by taxes confiscated from people like me at - ultimately - the point of a gun), nor any upside that would warrant wasting the lives of our best young men like my neighbor’s son.

2. Since WWII we’ve never really made any lasting positive difference with such military escapades anyway.

3. The Syrians are depleting their stockpiles of WMD (which could be used against us) - another plus.

4. All the newspaper ink, airtime and bandwidth now being devoted to this conflict and the indecisiveness on Obama’s part, can now become better focused on things that really matter, like his possible upcoming impeachment trial.

20
posted on 05/05/2013 7:57:37 AM PDT
by dagogo redux
(A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)

“President Obama is right on this. Why should we be involved in Syria?”

I agree. We shouldn’t be involved in foreign adventures unless there is some CLEAR U.S. economic or power interest, and then we should go in kick SERIOUS ass and then get the hell out.

Though given that almost every decision Obama has made as President has been antithetical to interests of working U.S. citizens and U.S. world power, he probably made the right decision for the wrong reasons.

25
posted on 05/05/2013 8:39:57 AM PDT
by catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)

In retrospect, the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam and his sons was probably right. Only after “mission accomplished” banner, we should had gotten the hell out and left the Ba’athist Army in charge of Iraq. The mess afterwards was not our problem.

Since there isn’t any good guys to protect in Syria, neither Assads forces or the rebel opposition, I say we should give them all sarin via airmail. They’ll be left thinking each side gassed the other. Problem solved!

32
posted on 05/05/2013 8:59:16 AM PDT
by diverteach
(If I find liberals in heaven after my death.....I WILL BE PISSED!!!)

[zero] got ahead of himself and his advisers when he said that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a "red line," the New York Times reports. How can we attack another country unless its in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution? an unnamed Obama administration official tells the paper. If he drops sarin on his own people, whats that got to do with us? But they concluded that drawing a firm line might deter Mr. Assad.... Several officials said they recalled no discussion about the red line phrase but suspected that it came out of the election-year conversation about Iran and how far to allow its nuclear program to progress... surprised at the presidents use of the term in regard to Syria on Aug. 20... But if the tough rhetoric "succeeded" for a time, it appears to have backfired in the long-run. Because Syria has now apparently used chemical weapons, and President Obama is not willing to do anything about it.

33
posted on 05/05/2013 8:59:51 AM PDT
by SunkenCiv
(Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)

Obama Aide On Syria’s Assad: ‘If He Drops Sarin On His Own People, Whats That Got Do Do With Us?’ Daniel Halper May 5, 2013 10:12 AM :>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What it has to do with the left is very simple:

1) It likely proves that the WMD ingrediants and their containers were removed from Iraq to Syria prior to the Invasion of Iraq by the Coalition.The lefty dems, now Obama fascists said that there was no proof of WMD upon which the invasion was predicated, when in fact the majority of Sadam Husseins WMDs were trucked out of Iraq into Syria by the Russians and the French, who were involved in trading WMDs for oil.ITS TIME FOR THE LEFT TO EAT CROW ON THE ISSUE. Their attempt to rewrite history has failed.

2) What does it have to do with US? Well guess what it has to do with Israel, who are next on the Assad list of his defined vermin to be exterminated using WMDs!

Halper is a few bricks short of a load.Obama is so weak on these Syria/Libya issues that he looks like a tattered little guttersnip internationally. But he just keeps campaigning to redefine facts....until someone or something shuts him down.The bullet of reality will soon be catching up to him and his little pustulated, pestilantial, putrified running dogs like Halper.

Typical liberal, Obama is. Talks a big aggressive game about “red lines” but doesn’t want to deal with it when his mouth is writing checks his ass can’t—or won’t—cash.

I have no problem at this point with letting Syria sort its business out without our intervention unless they try and pull Israel into it, but the signals coming out of Washington now are so inconsistent—big talk and no action—that we’re probably going to end up hip-deep in that tar pit before this is all over.

I don’t disagree. But Zero has been running smack about “red lines” and trying to actually sound like he’s got a pair of testicles (other than Michelle’s) for weeks now. All of a sudden, when the feces impact the rotary ventilator, he goes “Uh...LOOK! SQUIRREL!”

Central bankers want Syria to turn its nationally-owned central bank into a privately-held central bank, i.e., to be absorbed into the BIS/globalist realm.

This is what happened in Libya.

Terrorism works on behalf of globalism, however only the uppermost echelons of terror leadership realize who they’re really working for. Most just see ideology, money, power and lust. They do not know the private dealings of the leadership of their organizations.

President Obama is right on this. Why should we be involved in Syria? WRONG! You would have been 100% right ONLY if Obama had stated that from the beginning instead of creating some fake "red line" which he drew for North Korea and Iran. Now OUR enemies are watching our response. Like you I also do no think we should have gotten involved. But we are now, unless the words of the USA mean NOTHING in the world.

Agreed! When will the American people and Congress learn that anything this POS says is a lie.

47
posted on 05/05/2013 9:45:52 AM PDT
by thegrump
(The US is not at war with Islam, but Islam sure as H%!! is at war with the US.)

An American president has to back up his own words. We know Obama is a cowardly leader, disloyal as he is being guided (misguided in truth against the US interests) by the UN. I wouldn’t trust Obama leading any war to be honest. We are doomed either way with him because he is already proving he leads by the political winds to appease his inner circle (who give him directions). He doesn’t care if our own people die nor care about innocent people who are being slandered (Turn your heads; it always works for the democrats) See Hillary. We all know what should happen but the world is prominently an appeaser to radicalism of one religion.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.